The Greater Good

[s09119]

Well from what we know, the grip of the Darkside is quite strong and it takes a lot to break free of it like watching your son get murdered. But that's neither here nor there, the point is he risked his life to show the Emperor that he wasn't going to turn evil, and the Rebels still won.

And my point is that the Dark Side is an exaggerated view of doing "bad" things. Murder is wrong, but soldiers and policemen do it every day to save others. How is torture any different? Something that should be prevented as much as possible, of course, but when its use can benefit the vast majority of people, who are we to sacrifice people's lives for no reason?

[s09119]

I have no answer for that question. That's such a ridiculous proposition. I can imagine no plausible situation where i'd be put in that position.

Killing a hostage-taker to save hostages.

[Major_Griff]

And my point is that the Dark Side is an exaggerated view of doing "bad" things. Murder is wrong, but soldiers and policemen do it every day to save others. How is torture any different? Something that should be prevented as much as possible, of course, but when its use can benefit the vast majority of people, who are we to sacrifice people's lives for no reason?

Soldiers and policemen who 'murder' certainly go to jail/military prison. Police men are sometimes forced to shoot and kill criminals which is called justifiable homicide, not murder. A legal technicality, sure, but murder is a legal term. As for soldiers, killing other soldiers in battle is certainly not wrong.

[Krazeh]

I have no answer for that question. That's such a ridiculous proposition. I can imagine no plausible situation where i'd be put in that position.

You don't need to imagine a situation, it's a simple moral question. Could you consider the killing of 1 person to be acceptable if it saves the lives of 100 others?

[s09119]

Soldiers and policemen who 'murder' certainly go to jail/military prison. Police men are sometimes forced to shoot and kill criminals which is called justifiable homicide, not murder. A legal technicality, sure, but murder is a legal term. As for soldiers, killing other soldiers in battle is certainly not wrong.

Okay, replace "murder" in my above post with "killing." The point still stands.

[Major_Griff]

Killing a hostage-taker to save hostages.

So if for some reason I have a sniper rifle and I'm the only one with a shot on the target? Okay fine. If that was the case I'd obviously be a police officer of some sort and therefore shooting the hostage taker would be part of my job.

Col Young is a member of USAF and is therefore bound to the US Constitution which expressly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

[s09119]

So if for some reason I have a sniper rifle and I'm the only one with a shot on the target? Okay fine. If that was the case I'd obviously be a police officer of some sort and therefore shooting the hostage taker would be part of my job.

Col Young is a member of USAF and is therefore bound to the US Constitution which expressly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

What he's doing is not punishment for a crime.

[Major_Griff]

You don't need to imagine a situation, it's a simple moral question. Could you consider the killing of 1 person to be acceptable if it saves the lives of 100 others?

But it's irrelevant since it's totally different than torture. Killing someone would be a split second discussion and would be done without thinking. Torture is calculated, and takes more than the split second of pulling a trigger to engage in.

[EllieVee]

What he's doing is not punishment for a crime.

I'm pretty sure torturing people for information isn't allowed either.

And torturing someone in another's body (notably the body of someone you hate so it's killing two birds with one stone) is morally suspect at best.

[Major_Griff]

What he's doing is not punishment for a crime.

More or less it is. He is an admitted spy so now we're going to torture him to get information.

[s09119]

But it's irrelevant since it's totally different than torture. Killing someone would be a split second discussion and would be done without thinking. Torture is calculated, and takes more than the split second of pulling a trigger to engage in.

How is that even close to realistic? Killing isn't split-second unless it's a crime of passion. People are killed methodically and with reason every second of every day. And torture isn't always calculated, sometimes it can be done without having been planned beforehand when one realizes there's no other recourse.

[Major_Griff]

I'm pretty sure torturing people for information isn't allowed either.

I think the cruel and unusual punishment thing covers that. Punishment is a loose term any way.

[Krazeh]

But it's irrelevant since it's totally different than torture. Killing someone would be a split second discussion and would be done without thinking. Torture is calculated, and takes more than the split second of pulling a trigger to engage in.

Where did I say anything about your choice needing to be a split second decision? You have all the time in the world to think about it before deciding whether you kill the one person or the 100 people. So which is it?

[s09119]

I think the cruel and unusual punishment thing covers that. Punishment is a loose term any way.

You're aware the United States has tortured people despite that, along with pretty much every other country on the planet, right?

[Major_Griff]

How is that even close to realistic? Killing isn't split-second unless it's a crime of passion. People are killed methodically and with reason every second of every day. And torture isn't always calculated, sometimes it can be done without having been planned beforehand when one realizes there's no other recourse.

Well I don't think Young should go around killing people any way. And in the time he had to leave the room Order Brody to vent the atmo, wait for him to do it, and tell Telford what was happening, he definitely had time to realize what he was doing.